Outcome of Temporary Circulatory Support As a Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Patients.
Journal
Critical care medicine
ISSN: 1530-0293
Titre abrégé: Crit Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0355501
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2022
01 05 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
3
1
2022
medline:
3
5
2022
entrez:
2
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Temporary circulatory support (TCS) as a bridge-to-left ventricular assist device (BTL) in cardiogenic shock patients has been increasing, but limited data exists on this BTL strategy. We aimed at analyzing the outcome of BTL patients in a population of cardiogenic shock patients compared with those without TCS at the time of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery and identify predictors of postoperative mortality in this specific population. A multicenter retrospective observational study conducted in 19 centers from 2006 to 2016. Nineteen French centers. A total of 329 cardiogenic shock patients at the time of LVAD implantation were analyzed. Patients were divided in three groups: those under TCS at the time of LVAD implantation (n = 173), those with TCS removal before LVAD surgery (n = 24), and those who did not undergo a bridging strategy (n = 152). Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. None. Among the BTL group, 68 (39.3%), 18 (10.4%), and 15 (8.7%) patients were under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and IABP support alone, and 72 patients (20.6%) were under multiple TCS support. BTL patients presented similar 30 days survival compared with the TCS removal and non-BTL groups. However, BTL group had a significantly longer ICU duration stay, with two-fold duration of mechanical ventilation time, but the three groups experienced similar postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors of mortality in the BTL group: combined surgery with LVAD, body mass index (BMI), and heart failure (HF) duration. BTL strategy was not an independent predictor of mortality in cardiogenic shock patients who underwent LVAD. BTL strategy is not associated with a lower survival among cardiogenic shock patients with LVAD implantation. Predictors of mortality are combined surgery with LVAD, higher BMI, and HF duration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34974497
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005424
pii: 00003246-202205000-00027
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e426-e433Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Drs. Delmas and Gaudard received funding from Abiomed. Drs. Delmas and Blangy received funding from Abbott. Dr. Blangy received funding from Boston and Zoll. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, et al.; HeartMate II Clinical Investigators: Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:885–896
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group: 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37:2129–2200
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al.: 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:e147–e239
Stewart GC, Givertz MM: Mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure: Patients and technology in evolution. Circulation. 2012; 125:1304–1315
Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, et al.: Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017; 36:1080–1086
Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Stevenson LW, et al.: INTERMACS database for durable devices for circulatory support: First annual report. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008; 27:1065–1072
Riebandt J, Haberl T, Mahr S, et al.: Preoperative patient optimization using extracorporeal life support improves outcomes of INTERMACS Level I patients receiving a permanent ventricular assist device. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 46:486–492; discussion 492
Hoefer D, Ruttmann E, Poelzl G, et al.: Outcome evaluation of the bridge-to-bridge concept in patients with cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 82:28–33
Ton VK, Xie R, Hernandez-Montfort JA, et al.: Short- and long-term adverse events in patients on temporary circulatory support before durable ventricular assist device: An IMACS registry analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020; 39:342–352
Kinugawa K, Nishimura T, Toda K, et al.; the J-MACS investigators: The second official report from Japanese registry for mechanical assisted circulatory support (J-MACS): First results of bridge to bridge strategy. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 68:102–111
Shah P, Pagani FD, Desai SS, et al.; Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network: Outcomes of patients receiving temporary circulatory support before durable ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 103:106–112
Galand V, Flécher E, Auffret V, et al.; ASSIST-ICD Investigators: Predictors and clinical impact of late ventricular arrhythmias in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018; 4:1166–1175
Vallabhajosyula S, Arora S, Lahewala S, et al.: Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock before left ventricular assist device surgery. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7:e010193
Yoshioka D, Takayama H, Garan AR, et al.: Bridge to durable left ventricular assist device for refractory cardiogenic shock. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017; 153:752–762.e5
Uil den CA, Akin S, Jewbali LS, et al.: Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic-shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 52:14–25
Cheng JM, Valk SD, den Uil CA, et al.: Usefulness of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2009; 104:327–332
Lee SH, Chung CH, Lee JW, et al.: Factors predicting early- and long-term survival in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). J Card Surg. 2012; 27:255–263
Pagani FD, Aaronson KD, Swaniker F, et al.: The use of extracorporeal life support in adult patients with primary cardiac failure as a bridge to implantable left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71(3 Suppl):S77–S81; discussion S82–S85
Slottosch I, Liakopoulos O, Kuhn E, et al.: Outcomes after peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: A single-center experience. J Surg Res. 2013; 181:e47–e55
Coeckelenbergh S, Valente F, Mortier J, et al.: Long-term outcome after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as bridge to left ventricular assist device preceding heart transplantation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Jul 3. [online ahead of print]
Lamba HK, Kim M, Santiago A, et al.: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in INTERMACS-1 patients. J Artif Organs. 2021 May 13. [online ahead of print]
Landis ZC, Soleimani B, Stephenson ER, et al.: Severity of end-organ damage as a predictor of outcomes after implantation of left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2015; 61:127–132
Cowger J, Shah P, Stulak J, et al.: INTERMACS profiles and modifiers: Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016; 35:440–448
Shah P, Smith S, Haft JW, et al.: Clinical outcomes of advanced heart failure patients with cardiogenic shock treated with temporary circulatory support before durable LVAD implant. ASAIO J. 2016; 62:20–27
Yoshioka D, Sakaguchi T, Saito S, et al.: Predictor of early mortality for severe heart failure patients with left ventricular assist device implantation: Significance of INTERMACS level and renal function. Circ J. 2012; 76:1631–1638
Mehta P, Imamura T, Juricek C, et al.: Combined left ventricular assist device and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: Should we bypass the bypass? ASAIO J. 2020; 66:32–37
Sandner SE, Zimpfer D, Zrunek P, et al.: Renal function and outcome after continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87:1072–1078
Loyaga-Rendon RY, Acharya D, Pamboukian SV, et al.: Duration of heart failure is an important predictor of outcomes after mechanical circulatory support. Circ Heart Fail. 2015; 8:953–959
Hullmann JE, Mather PJ: Elevated body mass index is not a risk factor for adverse outcomes following ventricular assist device implantation. Prog Transplant. 2018; 28:157–162
Forest SJ, Xie R, Kirklin JK, et al.: Impact of body mass index on adverse events after implantation of left ventricular assist devices: An IMACS registry analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018; 37:1207–1217
Zahr F, Genovese E, Mathier M, et al.: Obese patients and mechanical circulatory support: Weight loss, adverse events, and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92:1420–1426